Talk:String theory/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Unbalanced Criticism section & possibly more

Possibly is interesting to repeat as a background, to the community, the sequential reasoning done in the summaries, which gave origin to this talk:

1. 01:21, 3 April 2014? SacredLabyrinth: (+1,141)? . . (??Criticisms: lack of conventional formalism)
2. 02:38, 3 April 2014? Polytope24 (-1,136)? . . (material not supported by a reliable source) [reversion]
3. 19:40, 3 April 2014? SacredLabyrinth (+1,136)? . . (as suitably pointed out, content is supported by reliable source) [reversion]
4. 19:56, 3 April 2014? Polytope24 (-1,136)? . . (Undid revision 602624478 by SacredLabyrinth)
5. 20:35, 3 April 2014? SacredLabyrinth (+1,136)? . . (Undid revision 602626269 by Polytope24. please avoid unjustified reversions. regard the article's talk for any doubt)
6. 03:20, 4 April 2014? Bhny (-1,136)? . . (Undid revision 602631653 by SacredLabyrinth. sorry that author is not a recognized scientist)
7. 17:20, 4 April 2014? SacredLabyrinth (+1,136)? . . (sorry, author is scientist and notable (see google, etc). if you think differently, so supporting your claim (no acceptance, etc) with RSs you should include it in the article refuting his criticism (after that critique, of course) [reversion]
8. 17:27, 4 April 2014? Polytope24 (-1,136)? . . (Undid revision 602749947 by SacredLabyrinth (talk) this paragraph is unintelligible, and a google search brings up lots of results denouncing the author as a crackpot) [reversion]

Likely should be remembered to Polytope24 to be careful when mentioning living persons. Please keep civil, because your last summary can have been offensive to that author. Secondly as said before, your interpretations and opinions must remain out of the articles unless you have a RS to expose them (as Wikipedia's standpoint). And the fact is until here you didn't support your reversions with RS, you just did them based on your tendentious preferences. And at least once you didn't even write a summary to such radical edition.

That said, let us go to main point. It's sad see that Criticism section remains very poor and this in most part promoted by editor Polytope24, who openly and with obsession edits and barricades this theme (string theory and right correlated others). Polytope24 has refused even that modest paragraph added by this editor. Oh please, about the intelligibility anyone willing feel free to make any improvement about. Can you tell us Polytope24 why are you so defensive in these articles? What exactly is your relation with this subject? Sorry to ask, but this has been very discussed ultimately in Wikipedia: are you being commissioned? If not why that attitude? What is your real interest here?

Likely editor Longerboats5 did the best consideration until here about this precarious state of things. He very well highlighted as important criticisms by several eminent scientists has been kept away from that section. As matter of fact observing that section we notice that it was really constructed to avoid criticism. Notice how it starts restraining the possible criticism to a specific kind and to a limited number of items. Well, this is ridiculous. SacredLabyrinth (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear SacredLabyrinth, I absolutely agree that the criticism section needs work, but I have some specific problems with the changes you've made.

The main problem is that you're citing a very questionable source in the paragraph that you added. According to WP:RS, questionable sources include "websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." If you Google the author of the book you cite, you will find many websites accusing the author of crackpottery (yes, this word is used several times even on the first page of results). The source you cite is also promotional in nature, with the author calling himself "the New Leonardo". This falls squarely within Wikipedia's definition of a questionable source and is not appropriate for use in this encyclopedia.

The second problem is that the paragraph makes no sense. I'm guessing that English is not your first language, and I completely respect that and would be happy to work with you on expressing these ideas more clearly. If you can point to a more reliable source that expresses the same criticism of string theory, I will gladly help you adapt it into a paragraph for this article.

Finally, let me say that my main interest here on Wikipedia is improving the string theory articles by making them informative, technically accurate, and accessible. So far, I've mostly focused on minor subpages, but eventually I intend to work on the main string theory article. I am happy to discuss these articles with you, but I ask that you please refrain from speculating about my motivations for contributing to Wikipedia. Polytope24 (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Your reply just makes a minimum difference. The source used to the criticism erased repeatedly by you was a published book, not a website (just remembering, though obviously some websites are also RS). Your observations about the author and his view remain only as your personal opinions. Your reply changes nothing in that; by the way when a subject, a site, a blog, or whatever is offending somebody else, you really shouldn’t repeat that offenses here or anywhere; it is not civil. You have been consistently disrespectful to that author. Concluding you didn't present yet a valid reason to any reversion, in fact your attitude was frankly possessive. However if you have some RS claiming that such author is ineligible, then I'm willing to reach an agreement. Please show us reliable sources supporting your bias. Furthermore I would strongly suggest you, again, a complete change in Criticism section (as mentioned above) which allows any editor to add any new criticism ... easily. SacredLabyrinth (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

A self-published "AuthorHouse" book is not a reliable source. The author seems unknown outside of blogs. Provide a link to prove otherwise. Bhny (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but that said by whom? By you? Not enough. I mean, can you prove that that book is self-published? Please, again, provide us a RS for what you claim. SacredLabyrinth (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

You are the one adding things. You need to provide a RS. You haven't yet provided one. Do you understand this? (Google AuthorHouse, it does self-publishing.) Bhny (talk) 22:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry again, but that said by whom? By you? Not enough. You are the one claiming that a source is supposedly invalid. You need to prove your point. A RS was already plenty provided, show us a valid link proving your allegation about the publisher. Do you understand this? SacredLabyrinth (talk) 22:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

No the onus is on you to establish that the source you provide is reliable. Beyond issues of reliability of the source, I see major concerns in the area of due weight. I see very little reason to include the criticism of a single person, if it is not shared by others. You can probably fill a small library with all criticisms of string theory (and their rebutals) published. This means we do not have space to treat every individual criticism. Instead the article should focus on the main lines of criticism (and any counter arguments) shared by many authors.TR 23:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Interesting your reasoning. However using this criterion said by you, i.e. a claim made up by an editor(s), then would be impossible to add any contribution to an article if other editor(s) doesn't want it. The onus of a contribution is to present a RS to it, and this was done. The source used is from, at least, an okay publisher. Thus, if there is something claiming otherwise then is your onus show us it in an official black list, for example. What at this point seems very unlikely, otherwise someone would have already showed it. SacredLabyrinth (talk) 00:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Given your trolly discussion style I won't further engage with you. I'll just leave you with a list of policy links that are relevant here:

• WP:PRIMARY
• WP:DUE
• WP:RS

There is probably more that could be added to that list, but I'll leave it at that.TR 13:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Given my best replies in this talk infuse more politeness and concern about civility than those used by some string theorists here, and given as well my worst replies use the same tone used by you and your friends, then you and the other anti-criticism string theorists here are in no position to make such or any complaint. In fact when an editor tries to intimidate other editors calling names, usually he is the real troll. About the policy links provided by you, they do not cancel this discussion or the stressed issues brought up in this page. Verily the article remains completely unbalanced and even worst since you, by your bias, again removed the tag (unbalanced) during this discussion. See, trying to enforce your bias, like when you and editor Bhny repeatedly did remove the tag, which was inviting the whole community for a fair discussion, it is just not very wise. On the other hand, it is not only up to me to work these issues brought up here by myself and others. And I very likely don't have the necessary skills anyway. So, let us listen the community. SacredLabyrinth (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to discuss one way or another regarding civility. I do believe that the editors pointing out concerns with your proposed references are correct, especially WP:DUE and WP:RS. There is a lot of valid criticism of string theory which is well referenced in this article though. The references are, and should continue to be, of sufficient rigor to provide valid criticism. People like Lee Smolin, Peter Woit, or many of the others cited in the article provide valid criticism and there are many critical references included. Saying the article is unbalanced completely ignores the those references/criticisms. Criticism should be, if not from peer-reviewed journals, at least should be from reputable sources (and not self-published, primary sources).Caidh (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh well, undoubtedly is your choice to ignore a high topic, as civility, which in depth affects not only this page and this talk, but also does affect in the article's bones, as well as the whole Wikipedia. To tell the truth I understand your choice as a big mistake, but I respect your option for ignoring this opportunity. Concerning the policies cited by you I believe I already reasoned around them into my previous replies. Nevertheless I will repeat my rationalization trying this time to be more extensive:

Those policies, improved through the years, are plausibly formulated and very useful as more a guidance than as rules. This is because from a certain point they necessarily have a limited application since in the end of their course they finish commonly interpreted by a troop of individuals who have their respective bias. That is, unless you have beforehand, for example, some kind of official black list, who is to decide what are the acceptable publishers? This obviously apart from the primary, 2nd, 3rd source feature, the thing is nobody owns this fair, unbiased capability, so usually what we have in Wikipedia is a group of editors arguing in favor of some publishers which have notable authors or at least publications either from universities or from mainstream trends. This movement seems to be a good idea, and looks like a good procedure. But if you analyse this behavior a little better, you will end realizing this is also a guillotine for criticism, for new articles, for new editors, for the development of new ideas, for the development of knowledge. See, I am not arguing against these policies, until certain point I do feel them necessary and reasonably conceived. The problem is your biased utilization, they should not be a guillotine of knowledge, they should not be a tool only for the season's mainstream using. As matter of fact they are good tools unless those troops decide to use them for theirs own interests, ... as usually happens. With such perspective in mind, now is easy to realize the unbalances perpetrated in this article. So reader, just do check the links provided by me in this talk, and you will figure out by yourself the fierce reality. SacredLabyrinth (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I just love how in your logic everybody that doesn't agree with you is obviously hopelessly biased. (Also, to be clear: the "development of knowledge" and the "development of new ideas" are explicitly NOT the goal of Wikipedia.)TR 20:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, at this juncture, we have few commentaries here, but in fact everybody in the world, including me, has a bias. On the other hand please refrain from making up words for me, since your statement is misleading. If anyone has the time to read this talk page, or following the links imparted in this discussion, he, or she will realize that here is not only my perception but also that of other editors who as well point out the article's unbalance. Regarding the other stuff pointed out, though I already knew the matter we have appreciate anyway your recall with respect to "knowledge versus Wikipedia". See, I don't think anybody should take this nonsensical anti-goal seriously. Even if not considered a goal, at the lowest Wikipedia is inevitably an adjuvant tool which helps to produce, or should do, consequences such as the expansion of knowledge. And this new information in turn, should be incorporated into it, ... evidently. SacredLabyrinth (talk) 03:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

this is really off-topic, and someone you quote (who strangely resembles you) has already written about it here- [[1]] Bhny (talk) 16:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Question What are the sources, and what is the proposed text relating to them? 94.193.139.22 (talk) 12:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

  diffTR 15:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

A clear explanation of the problems it solves is needed

Rather than just throwing terms at the reader, IMHO this article should be written with the multiple phenomena that it deals with and that it is supposed to solve. Tell us please, what physical occurrences have been observed, how they've been explained differently, and what are the incentives that call for this theory. Maybe those are all there in the article, but they are buried too deep. I'm not saying you have to explain everything from the ground up, to a first grader, but this is just way too high tech speech. And there's no reason for that. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 12:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

One dimentional?

...then how does it have a "radius"? פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 12:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Lede, re gravity: Is "Besides this potential role..." redundant?

The lede as currently written says string theory naturally incorporates gravity and thus is a potential theory of everything, and then says that "besides this potential role", it has shed light on quantum gravity. Question: isn't that phrase redundant? Or does string theory incorporate gravity in ways that do not necessarily involve quantum gravity? --Middle 8 (contribs • COI) 07:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

"Failure" claim appears unsupported

The statement "Some critics of string theory say that it is a failure as a theory of everything," is followed by 6 citations (after I removed one duplicate), but most of them do not make that particular claim, but rather only review some of the well-known points of contention – the large number of solutions and the high characteristic energy scale of quantum gravity. Few if any of them appear to go so far as to claim that string theory is a "failure" as a TOE. I do recall Peter Woit making this claim on his blog, so that reference is probably correct, but still lacking a precise citation. However the referenced John Baez blog post (John Baez weblog. Math.ucr.edu, 2007-02-25; Retrieved on 2012-07-11) clearly doesn't make this claim, for example. Both of the other Peter Woit documents also don't seem to make this claim explicitly either (correct me if I'm wrong).

Therefore I am moving these two Peter Woit references to after where his name appears in the listing of critics, because these documents are critical of string theory but do not claim it is a "failure". I will remove the reference to Baez's blog because it clearly does not support the claim in question. And I will add requests for page numbers to both the link to Woit's blog as well as Lee Smolin's book. I don't know if Lee's book makes this claim outright that string theory is a failure, (I don't think so, based on what I remember), but I will otherwise leave it in place in case somebody else can find the statements that support this claim. Otherwise this reference too should be listed after his name in the list of critics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isocliff (talk • contribs) 16:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Isocliff. I just wanted to let you know that I will soon be making some major revisions to the article. I'm going to import material from the three featured string theory articles (AdS/CFT correspondence, mirror symmetry, and M-theory), and I'm going to completely rewrite the criticism section, adding more precise citations. So don't worry too much about the current issues -- soon this article should look much better! Polytope24 (talk) 19:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

That's good to hear Polytope24, the article certainly looks like it could benefit from something like that. I'm looking forward to seeing these additions, and I'll hold off on any further edits until then. Isocliff (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

A lack of mathematical language

I was pretty disappointed because I couldn't find any mathematical formula in this article. Bonaventura Radityo (talk) 11:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree [Like wise] פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 12:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree I thought Wikipedia articles were supposed to have all the facts. Mypal125 (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)